Recent efforts
 

Peter Jochems suggested that I post some of my current stuff, and I guess there's no harm in it, but I recognize that I've got a long way to go, and critiques from pros are not being solicited here, as I can see for myself that I have a lot of room for improvement. I'll keep plugging away and ask for critiques when I feel like I've hit a roadblock. I'm not currently at a roadblock. I'm just at the beginning of the road.

This is a self-portrait from life. Unfortunately, I can only find one model who'll pose as long as I want. Fortunately, he works for free :).

Here's a drawing of my wife, from a photo. I've learned from this, and other experiences, that the SOG artists are right about photo references. I need better lighting, for one thing. The photo was taken outdoors under diffuse evening light. There was no real light direction, and no clearly defined shadows. With my cheap digital camera, I am very limited in my lighting options. Shaded areas can lose all definition in the photo.

Anyway, this is Janice...

Very nice drawing of your wife, but as you mentioned, both drawings could benefit from a more definite angle of light.

The one of yourself, in particular, could also benefit from a wider range of values. Don't hesitate to go for those darkest darks wherever you see them. It is hard, though, to light one's self appropriately for a painting and still have enough light to paint by!

One more thing I noticed: watch the alignment of the eyes on the self portrait. The inner corners do not point at each other as they should

Michelle,

I had particular difficulty drawing my eyes, because I couldn't see them very well with my glasses on (too much reflection), and I can't see anything at all with them off. I guess I spent so much time making them up, that I forgot to make them match. Thanks.

Jeff,

This is a very nice drawing of your wife in my opinion, with the exception of the missing darker values. The form looks like it was rendered quite accurately, particularly the arm extending downward into the hand. This area is not as easy to draw as it may appear to some.

Nice.

Thanks, Mike. Still far to go.

Hi Jeff,

Glad you posted them, I like them both. I agree with Michele about the eyes of the self-portrait. I like the determination you captured which shows in the eyes.

I like the drawing of your wife, especially the hand on her knee and her hair. Maybe you can accentuate certain areas more in your future drawings? I would like to see more dynamics in the way you use light en dark in your drawings, not by making it al very dark, but to have a broader range in gray-values in your drawing. To me certain shadowy areas in her hair, and for example her pupils, or certain parts of her glasses can have some dark accents. It gives the drawing more dynamics, or a certain rythm. Do it subtle.

Do you make these drawings watching a computer-screen? I thought I read that somewhere in another thread.

Peter

Jeff your wife looks great! I think everyone has said what could improve it to wonderful - a little more value contrast. Don't make it up, have her go get in the same position and just do the shapes in values, sketch them on tracing paper to the same scale - then apply them to your actual drawing!

Did you follow the Tony Ryder envelope etc. on this one?

I think the self portrait in a mirror is so hard. Especially when you wear glasses! You need to have a definitive light source for your self too. As Marvin's mantra goes... the head is a ball, the head is a ball. Think of the light that way.

A big thank you too for your nice comments and consistent ongoing support! :thumbsup:

I personally have a problem with certain common generalizations. Although it may explain something, I don't think of the head as a ball. A head is a head, not a ball, not an egg either. This kind of generalizations can make one's efforts lose character.

There is, in my view, nothing wrong with Jeff's understanding of how the light falls. Also, I would like to add that the lighting in Jeff's self-portrait can also be seen as 'interesting' instead of 'wrong'.

Peter

Wow Peter, I wasn't trying to questions Jeff's knowledge of lighting at all. But I really must disagree with you on the "rules" of lighting.

Lighting is what gives all shapes form, and if you are to discard this information - as it applies to "Classic Portraiture", you will have a very flat image. To bring an image out of the background I can't imagine anything more essential.

As an illustration of what I was trying to say, I am attaching a jpg with three examples. One is a ball with the lighting I am speaking of. The second is the same ball super imposed over a painted head and the third is the head with the "terms" pointed out. Please keep in mind the word "ball" is to bring things to the most basic generalities.

Beth- - Did I mention the word rules ? huh !? I think the rules of light are extremely important and cannot be simplified in this manner.

One of the most important and crucial aspects of lighting a head isn't to be seen in this horrible way of simplifying things. That is: The light reflected from one part of the face onto another part of the face. And it happens everywhere in the face. This effect is totally excluded in this example. It's better to forget that awful ball-theory, therefore.

If you want a portrait to look three-dimensional and alive then you cannot exclude these reflections within a face.

Peter

But long before we get to the subtleties of light bouncing around within a form, we

The sun is a mass of incandescent gas
 

Jeff, I like the treatment of the clothing on the self-portrait, and the confidence in the hatching strokes. It has a very architectural quality, because of the strength of the outline, and the lines you're using to indicate the contours. Is there a name for those lines? I'm taking a workshop where the painter is calling it an "envelope."

I also like the utterly different (and more tender?) treatment of your wife. Nice front hand. Excellent hair!

You indicated you were going to go for a higher level of finish. Please post them again, love to see them evolve.

Beth, Thanks for reminding me of this, I need to hear it every so often. Even though all my references talk about a single area of greatest light (or two, if you have a nose), I often forget and get crazy with the cheese whiz on my highlights. A little blending, and lo, I'm chalky, I'm columnar, and I'm starting over.

The head isn't a ball, or an egg, but it certainly isn't a column either. I think the value in calling a head a ball or an egg is that it's a handy little song to sing to oneself to remind the brush to focus, and to show restraint.

Just to clarify:

The "ball" example is the most simplistic shape for illustrating the concept behind the complex intricacies of light developing different forms. Sorry if my example is bad and didn't convey what I was trying to say.

Jeff, make sure you post your updates if you make changes!

Wow! Lots of responses.

Steven, you asked about the lighting for the self portrait. Well, that was a real problem, since I drew it in the evening, when light changes quickly. At the risk of sounding too Gothic: I was seated in the living room of my Victorian home. The Victorians really liked windows, and this room has several, in an octagon bay that faces north. Even with the shutters closed, there was light coming from every direction. I sat in front of a mirrored armoire, and as night fell, I turned on the sconces, which are behind me, but reflect light off the mirror, and into my face. Anyway, I found myself drawing local values with a little bit of shade on one side of my face. Natural light sound like a good idea, but it can be fickle.

Beth,

I can't buy into the "head as ball" theory. If that were true, why do so many people call me "blockhead"?

Gloria,

I used the envelope, but not very successfully. Somehow, I ended up with an unusually small head. Since I had developed the face early, I ended up erasing the rest of the body and drawing it smaller.

Peter,

Yes, I often draw pictures directly from the computer screen. I really like this for several reasons:

1. I can zoom in and out, doing a Whitaker's Waltz without leaving my chair.

2. I can lighten and darken my reference photo all I like to get hidden details.

3. With a digital camera, I can use my reference photo immediately. No film processing.

Thanks to all again,
Jeff

Jeff,

I

Jeff, you may find it helpful next time you are drawing yourself (or anyone else from life) in that space to block out a lot of the natural light coming in.

In Bill Whitaker's class he covered all but two small high windows, shining on each model. The other dozen or so ten foot high windows were covered up.

The windows in the north facing studio Bill chose for the class in the Scottsdale Artists School had blinds that opened from the top down so it was possible to block out all but the top couple of feet of the windows. The ceilings were also 12 feet high.

Bill Whitaker's feeling was that most artists' studios suffer from too much light. Small high light sources (especially north light) are the ideal.

Being a blockhead is dropping the ball
 

Thomas Eakins called light "the big tool." Any artist who doesn't consider the strength, size, quality and direction of the light source has a snowballs chance in h*ll in succeeding. In order to create the illusion of depth on a two dimensional surface, an artist needs every advantage possible. Not considering the light source is like throwing away the ace of trump while playing Bridge.

In terms of the head being considered a ball. This is simply an analogy which champions the importance of relegating the smaller aspects to a secondary role in relationship to the big form and planes. The approach favored by most untrained artists, of giving prominence to the details, is the mark of the amateur since it results in the inevitable flattening and distortion of form.

Bouguereau said the key was to relegate the small accents to the providence of the big planes. Whether one appreciates the content of his paintings or not, his technical superiority is beyond reproach.

'Analogy of the head with a ball' sounds better than the 'mantra: A head is a ball'- Still, this should be said in a broader context instead of showing just this piece of the puzzle, like earlier in this thread to which I responded.

Peter

Jeff, I realize this is heresy, but I think the value of natural light is overstated, here and elsewhere. When I'm working, it's not unusual for me to draw or paint for eight to ten hours at a stretch (with sushi breaks of course -- though not "of course", as I hate sushi and even the idea of it; perhaps I meant a libation.) I don't believe I mentioned "natural" light (maybe I said "northern") and I probably wouldn't, because where does that leave those of us who paint in the evening, or the early a.m. hours? Chopped liver? I don't think so.

And I'll tell you what, natural light over a three-hour work period, from one day to the next, over a lengthy sitting or painting, has no more consistency or continuity than water down a river. I have to say that I've never known anyone who had to produce work indoors on a regular basis and was able to do so on the luxury of natural light.

A lessor was just enquiring of me whether I needed studio space with windows, and I told her I'd just tape foil onto them anyway, so, no. I'm in charge of the light on my subject, whether for an hour or eight.

Aha -- another useful tip! Steven, you tape foil over windows to block the light? What a great idea!

The window in my studio is too big and I was wondering if I should go out and buy those blinds that pull up from the bottom. Sounds like a box of aluminum foil and a roll of masking tape would to the trick just fine. Thanks!

Aaaaaaaaarrrrggggggggghhhhhhhh!!!
 

Now I wish I hadn't started this thread!

Working in social services, I see aluminum foil in every seedy trailer park and project apartment I go to. Drug abusers and child abusers seem to love darkness in their houses. To me, foil in windows has a very sinister connotation. I don't care how dark I need a room to be, aluminum foil will NEVER show in my windows.

Do your neighbors a favor. Put mat board in your windows, and if you still need it darker, put foil on the inside, so it doesn't show from the street.

I thought I'd cover the outside of the foil with something white. Mat board seems like a good idea. I agree that foil would look awful to the neighbors. Then again, we are drug abusers here -- our drug of choice happens to be chocolate.

I knew it!

And what does that chocolate come wrapped in? FOIL!

Get help, Michele. You're too talented to throw your life away like that!

Hi Jeff,

I know you

John,

Thanks for taking so much time to reply with illustrations!

I'm definitely going to have to get a new monitor. My 7 year old monitor doesn't display correctly, so I can't adjust my scans to match the original. Several comments have been made about the lack of contrast. Here at the office (new monitor), I can see why they say that. Both of these drawings are on pure white paper, and the blacks are quite dense. The shadowed part of Janice's hair, on both sides of her neck, is very black.

As for the eyeglass thing. I debate with myself whether I should include the refraction or not. I don't know what the consensus is among artists. I'll just have to try it both ways and decide which works better for me. One advantage is that the glasses are implied, and don't have to be rendered in as much detail. I've seen fine portraits that barely hint at the glasses. Taking advantage of optics can help with this.

Image size that you see is about 9"x12". This is the size of my scanner bed. The actual paper is larger. Since I didn't draw backgrounds, only white space was cropped.

And yes, I'm left handed.

Thanks again.

I've wretched over this, and my personal decision was to draw the figure as in nature and then put the glasses on. Otherwise, you're completely dictated by the lens prescription, angle of view, angle of light and so on. I've found that skewing the figure in nature to somehow "reflect" the lens mechanics always looks "wrong".

(I will eventually get to the second drawing, which is also very nice.)

I suppose, Steven, that I just consider nature to be the ensemble of subject, glasses, and any other accessories that happen to be included in the portrait. It's easy to explain away a lack of a refractive offset by hypothesizing that the eyeglass prescription is a relatively mild one. I only brought it up because Jeff's self-portrait maximizes my expectations of seeing the effect: a strong contour seen through the margin of the lens. Since I know how it usually looks, I've come to expect to see it; and if I don't see it I wonder why.

A few weeks ago I did sixteen rapid mirror self-portraits in an afternoon, so, after reading your post, I went and looked at them to see how I handled this. I regret to report that in every instance I avoided the issue by doing a relatively straight-ahead view. Not a single one has a strong vertical contrast behind a lens margin. I wasn't aware of deliberately avoiding the issue, but who knows? I guess the best advice is to be aware of the situations where the refractive offset phenomenon is likely to occur and either avoid them or deal with it on a case-by-case basis.

Now that I have a new monitor, I should be able to post scans that are more true to the original (not that that's a good thing :bewildere).

Here's Janice with the truer contrast and values. No changes have been made to the drawing. In fact, this is the same scan, with altered contrast and brightness.

Hi Jeff,

That's quite a difference on my screen! I think somebody earlier commented on the good treatment of the hair, although It wasn't obvious to me what they meant. Now I can see that the outer margin of the hair has regions that appear almost stippled and sparkly as well as more distinct edges. This is very effective.

The overall feeling of the drawing hasn't changed for me, but the greatest increase in contrast is around the hair and face. I think this is as it should be, given that that is the center of interest. The two things that I might be inclined to experiment with would be a slight darkening of the shadow where her leg disappears into the skirt, and lifting a few highlights on the folds of the dress on the upper chest on her left. That part of her torso would be brought forward with the shoulder, and I think this might help.

But as I said earlier, I'd consider keeping this one pretty close to where it is right now. I like it. It looks like a drawing's supposed to look.